Introductions

JB: Introduce hosts HP (NL) with support from Wells Fargo (DS).

[introductions around the table]

JB: This is Education Outreach working group. We talk about and work
through docs. WAI done through W3C. Four domains. Activities with chartered
working groups or interest groups. Chartered to address certain types of
work. EOWG awareness, training materials. Active in promotions and training.
Exchange of info. Wish list – good idea but not now. Deliverables
list. Resources Suites – several page resource.

JB: Agenda today – Two resource suites: Web Accessibility Training
– old resources suite; Building a Case for Web Accessibility. Then
user-centered design of WAI site. Worked through in past, stop for a while. A
year ago, revisited the topic of user-centered design. Building a Case for
Web Accessibility - I suggest we start with that.

JB: Go to http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/soc-new.html.
Switch and display from off-line and walk us through it. Start working on
some substance. Orientation to the suite. There are 5 pages in all with
suite. The first is an overview page. Purpose is to look at a range of
arguments for doing accessibility and be able to select from those rationales
something to help them in there organization. Often use several rationale.
May want to take a social responsibility position but have to take the strict
monetary business case. We give a number of factors to look at. Trouble
putting into a framework that works. Recently used these. William did a
rewriting of Andrew's writing. Principle of tersification that William
invented.

JB: changes:

Expanded the intro for what we want to say about social factors

Started plowing through the social responsibility clusters, throw out
the clutter

Pulled out levels that Andrew had combined access with low level of
literacy with speakers of other languages. May be very literate but not
fluent in reading other languages

Broken down the low bandwidth and other tech issues.

JB: Hope that we can look at the orientation/attitude of this page to see
if it feels right. Apologize that this revised draft was not available prior
to the meeting. Let’s see if this material makes sense.

JB: Orientation section. That is new. It is the whole social factors case
in one chunk. Provide why we are calling out social factors. Is this approach
that different folks would understand in different circumstances? Tried to
smooth out the language – be careful about claims we are making.

JB: Took out from earlier edits “older people suffering from a
wider range of impairments”.

JB: One of the things we were saying was a problem was that we were not
telling people how to use the suite. So we tell them how to use it.

JB: Sections ...Previous drafts a lot of detail. Too technical just have
the explanation for...

WL: Nutshell be a [?]shell rather than a coconut shell

JB: O.K. Bullets and skip verbiage.

DS: Overall page: add “access to work”.

JB: Charmane’s strong point to have employees. I demoted it but
maybe should have its own heading.

DS: Accessible wide range. Use IM (instant messaging).

JB: Separate out access to Web and access to employees.

LK: I like what has been said. The method that I see in this paragraph
presents what is going to be coming. Social responsibility - importance to
access to the Web. Putting out as if people understand it. Maybe we should
put out why is this important. Normalization for people for people with
disabilities. Using the concept of usability design.

JB: General reaction? Problem we always have in this working group. Our
documents are part of a network. Train ourselves to say when we want to
broaden a definition we look at where we have already done that and link to
it. Bill did provide links to how people with disabilities use the Web. Link
to it from here.

LK: Point to the definition. Otherwise, come to the document and haven't a
relationship understanding.

JB: This is the only place we talk about social responsibility.

HBj: I like what Bill said in the first and second paragraph. “This
document…” either have them in the same paragraph or change the
verbiage. In general in social responsibility, you don’t know if
social responsibility is the same in general around the world. In my country,
we talk a lot about social responsibility but it is in relationship to
employment, taking care of the old workers and the retirees. I don’t
know if we will be able to make a case for social responsibility around work.
Don’t think that is likely.

RL: Big thumbs up to the bullet points. The link to disability should go
to a definition - What disability means.

JB: William had that link. I can add it.

WL: In all the work we do, there is a tinge of elitism. Express an
audience that is talking from top down. Need to get the attitude that this is
a document to use not just to read. There is not a group of people in white
coats that will create this. Can accessible be cool? The attitude that
pervaded - "Poor unfortunates" rather than major players

JB: Refilter for reading.

WL: Key elements if language is different, this facilitates that. Causing
groups to talk to one another on line. Different than broadcast, a
conversation. Allow people to talk to each other - where a blind person could
talk to person who is deaf. That is not in our social responsibility
section.

JB: Using the wrong concept for the whole section. In reframing be careful
about creating a charitable frame. Just say social factors not social
responsibility. Would it work? How does that fit into a business case?

SLH: A lot of people will have a limited focus. Note that this is not the
only factor but it is one of the concepts.

SAZ: Feel audience is a bit missing. In social responsibility, are we
talking about the corporate. Maybe we should try to bring out a bit more who
the audience is of the Business case.

JB: It could be many: corporate, NGO (non-governmental organization),
university...

SAZ: Why should I implement accessibility for employees, other end users,
customers, businesses, and other audience that may need to access this
site.

JB: It goes back to Doyle saying we should be splitting public that access
the site and employees that have to access to the site.

WL: An organization can be one person, by the way.

MK: Steer away from social responsibility. Promoting interactivity not the
passive use of things. How this will connect people so they can share and
communicate. Industry thinks social responsibility already but, if we talk
about additional people who can be part of their conversation or people in
another organization.

JB: Been talking with organizations about parts that give them motivation
to do Web accessibility. That is what drives it already. Have to position
self. Already have Web access.

MK: Larger companies have funds to do this but smaller companies need to
meet budget. Customizable kit part of what we put on this page or just part
of it. Company said we don’t need. We understand that. Maybe we need
to find a place to say both. Some believe universal design is not possible so
they hear those words they shut down.

JB: We cannot make a list of every single item in one page.

NL: Use social responsibility lingo. Have a link to the social
responsibility. Have a definition and link to that.We are trying to eliminate
the digital divide then access to employees. i.e. connecting everyone to the
power of technology and building a foundation for universal access to basic
technology. Access for employees.

LK: Clarify where I was going with that include phrases like social
responsibility not a problem but I do think the point that Mimi was making
and others…maybe social responsibility… you don’t know
who you are making this for so why not make it so everyone can use it? Making
the case that there are people who access things in different ways, there is
a way to do that.

JB: What is your main suggestion?

LK: Between demo social responsibility and then enumerating in different
ways.

JB: Maybe a paragraph or two to do this. This is a dart board.
Don’t take it as anything other than that.

DS: Agree that social responsibility will be a subset of this. Section 508
and large corporations, the ADA are not strictly about social responsibility,
rather policy and law. Nice to have it in there but it helps to establish the
larger framework.

MK: Universal access and put social responsibility as a subset of that.
Have a concern that if you put social responsibility people won’t
click on that. Some aversion to this. Federal law if they want to sell with
the Government then the follow Section 508. Goes to the states. Do not think
that most companies in this country think about social responsibility. They
are just trying to make payroll.

JB: I talk with people from Fortune 500 companies that say social
responsibility is what has got them over the hump. One thing might be
interested in and then they look at the legal and tech. The are amazed at the
federal entities. They have found that Section 508 is not enough but they
have found that social responsibility helped move them forward. Let's take
the people in queue and then look at one or two or at least the first
section.

ML: Large corporation social responsibility… sponsorship establish
metrics for the efficiency of human to human interaction. ROI (return on
investment). Socially that is where we are lacking HR (human resources). Web
stuff what is that? Web people building HR related things but there is no
input coming. What kind of efficiencies can you have when your site is
translatable. Have some efficiencies. Contact management system. Internally a
lot of people.

JB: Talking about the technical factors are in the other parts of this
resource suite.

ML: There is an efficiency that can be gained here, and here, and the
social responsibility. How do we justify, retrain several.

JB: Are you saying this document is going to be helpful?

ML: The social part is not yet distilled enough. A cloudy vision
won’t help us. Sharper vision will help us.

JB: Let’s keep trying. The translatability needs to go into the
technical factors. make the distinction between internal vs. external - split
the public and the employee.

HBj: This is not a US (United States) paper. This is international where
the social factors are very important. Don’t build on the legal claims
but we do have a strong case no matter the size of the organization. They
have a responsibility to the community. The reason we came up with the social
factors is because people said the economic factors were not strong enough.
Therefore, what is there beside the bottom line? You have a social
responsibility and the social factors with the community. We have forgotten
about the environment. We should not damage the environment. And we have
other social impacts on how we have to be able to use this in Europe, US and
Australia.

WL: Song and Dance. If everyone put in bullets to the document, I will
volunteer to read and comment on them. Most important. Societal as well as
social. Social is just one aspect of responsibly – blame.

JB: Should we redraft, so factors more neutral?

WL: Yes.

PG: I will translate social factor. Would use more citizen factors: How
Web accessibility can help people be full citizens, full civic participation?
If you don’t do it, be the bad guy so they will do what we want. It is
regretful that we have to be careful to say.

SLH: The whole document a tool that people we can pick and choose. The
document is not intended to be given as the business case as is, but take the
points needed and then flush it out for my organization. This will facilitate
that. If they want social responsibility, they will pick it out.

Good straw man for discussion about separating employee and the
public.

More emphasis on interaction and not treating Web as a passive,
read-only medium.

Describe social factors before getting [?]

More conversation about social, societal factors, social
responsibilities or what exactly.

[?]

ML: Make it tangible

WL: Michael you now have an assignment– make it tangible

[break]

JB: Agenda - stay in this discussion and do the User Centered design to
after lunch, Slide some items off the discussion. Do two things: Briefly look
at the framework of the suite again, feedback on the intro to the social
page.

WL: Move the Gallery into limbo land.

JB: Reactions? comments? Alright. so let’s do that then.

JB. One of the other things not done much is the overview page. Change
from original framework, start talking about main subpages. Then would give
an idea of how to combine these for a particular business case. Had material
that gives idea of how to emphasize some sections. Mix and match. Orientation
of how to build business case. These copies don't link properly. Still, can
do updates to this copy of cover page. Economic factors, question and answer
approach. ROI (return on investment) approach. Technical factors document.
Worked over but needs more smoothing and editing.

JB. Back to social factors document, which we discussed earlier. We had
made comments about how to recast introduction. Describes area by area.
Access for people with different disabilities. Look at previous online
version, lot of detail. If we like the detail we can bring some of it in to
new draft. What is the level we want to aim at here? Level of detail in this
section by section.

WL. Policy document doesn't reiterate all policy bits, just links. The bit
about 10% of population can link. Framework with bullets and links to
statistics. Instead of being in this. This is very different to others. Need
to get them all consistent.

JB. We've already chosen very different formats.

WL. A way of looking at it a glance.

SAZ. Worried about contents; links to such detailed level of information.
May raise transition costs. Like to see links to relevant information. May be
better to include list of references at end.

WL. About potential audience, thing is that when user is looking for way
to present business case, needs a portal to detailed information. For users
who already know a lot about it. Where can I find detail?

SJ. Agree with you. In paragraph on people with disabilities; very
detailed. Should be list of bullets.

JB. One thing is access to services and information (for public sites) but
not why it's important. Access to Web through adoption of guidelines. So
general, neutral. Some people may not need this orientation first.

MK. Not necessary.

JB. What links would you add?

WL. Link to guidelines

HBj. Take care not to make it too much hypertext; people may get lost in
documents they don't understand.

WL. Use definition list.

JB. People may not understand the information.

RT. Where else is the statistics information?

JB. Extraordinarily difficult to do internationally. So we decided not to
do page of demographics. Is presently unsubstantiated.

RT. Georgia tech has this information. Is very important here. We
shouldn't leave it out.

JB. Getting many nods all around.

HBj. Do you mean link to the information?

RT. I wasn't meaning that specific, just the concept.

HBj. We don't want to put up statistics, because you see figures are not
that high. In Denmark the blind say it's not just about the number of people.
It also has wider benefits.

JB. I think Helle says we don't need to leave it out, but that it has
wider implications.

PG. Thinking about how I can translate that into French. We say people
with impairments, which means a big difference as it may be a temporary
disability. Affects the scope. Not only the percentage of blind people, but
many more people. Helps a lot in justifying accessibility.

JB. You're not saying miss out disability.

LK. We have done work on statistics. To make a point about these areas,
you do need to emphasize statistics. Don't want to avoid this issue. Internal
and external references. Should reference papers about it?

JB. We have decided not to include links to off-W3C sites in a page like
this, but use a separate page that we can update more frequently. Thought of
doing a demographics section that way.

LK. I'm not sure how strong the case is without statistics. If you have to
present to a board of directors, for example.

DS. In Wells Fargo we don't actually track disability statistics. Is a
problem. Statistics help correct problems. Research at MIT on attention
deficit user interfaces. Without statistics it's hard to discuss
seriously.

JB. We've discussed at length; statistics tracking. Difficult, so we
decided not to include demographics. Adopt a minimalist approach here.
Emphasize the idea behind it. Based on what I'm hearing, seems nobody's
opposed to leaving it out.

JB. Social factors. General reaction I hear to first paragraph is that it
doesn't work that well. For comparison here's what we had in March. Miss out
"ubiquitous"; doesn't translate well. Try to find William's draft. This
section has long bullets and uses Andrew's intro. Trying to do it shorter,
but hearing good reactions about how it looks. Is not right approach. Not
what people want. Not right yet but we know why.

JB. Employees. Do we need a table here? Audience, access, what might
help?

HBj. Last time we tried a matrix it was difficult (auxiliary benefits).

JB. [Shows auxiliary benefits tables on projector.] Social responsibility
included in table. Detail is above in page. Interesting way of organizing
information. Some people liked it some didn't.

CC. I think trouble is the seven subheadings (social factors document, new
draft). Formatting is the problem. There's a heading missing. Before
additional resources. Would read better if there was one heading for
employees.

JB. My impression when we were reviewing it together is that people don't
grab it at all.

CC. Going all the way to a table seems excessive.

JB. First two paragraphs need to be split. Access for public and for
employees.

CC. Access for people, and split it up with subheadings.

JB. Social factors heading is missing. So what do we say within each
section?

CC. Do the social factors change with category? If not you can use a
general overarching paragraph.

RT. You could write it to include all factors

CC. Social responsibility can apply to all and so it can be pulled out
into a common paragraph.

JB. So one approach is umbrella statement to say ensure that site meets
needs of all audiences. I started by assuming the umbrella statement. William
is that new in your draft?

WL. No, I took it from Andrew's version.

LK. I think that in each of your categories you've got the initial
statement, and the population groups, and then each audience's needs.
Actually have some of that, access to government info, entertainment. Could
be enough.

CC. Explain why each group is included. As opposed to some other group.
We're not saying this is all the groups.

JB. Say why each group is relevant.

HBj. Include employees.

SLH. See employees, but disability groups not in the list.

JB. Introduction is brutally shortened. Bullets. Social responsibility as
a hook. ... Who is and how it relates to accessibility. Comments?
Discussion?

HBj. Easier to continue discussion after someone has drafted the document
the way you describe. Would be much easier.

ML. Outline we're talking about user groups and stakeholders. Distinction
between user groups and what actual impairments may be or accessibility
barriers. Distinction between internal and external audience. Specific
impairments. If cognitive or physical, some are applicable and some aren't.
Distill everything into a core message.

MK. In our project we identify groups and the need for them in the
proposal.

ML. Groups with a disability. How does it translate into a proposal.

JB. Are you suggesting trying to create a segmented business case? It
doesn't work, but I've heard it said. Unified business case tied to the
guidelines.

AC. Is that explained in the document?

JB. Could be interesting.

ML. Does that help?

LK. Maybe I can clarify. I have list of categories. Older people can be a
significant part of disabilities.

ML. Mixing social and economic influences.

JB. In papers on digital divide, it's frightening the way they ignore
disability. Huge overlap with disability categories. Don't think we can
arrive at clear-cut groups.

MK. Michael expresses things I was trying to describe. Economic effect of
disability.

JB. People often not thinking about disability issues. Umbrella should say
that disabilities interact.

JB. Glad we went into more depth on this. One thing I take away is to
expand umbrella, expand categories and interactions, and see how it works out
when we do individual sections.

CC. Will have a go at a section.

JB. When we come back, we should go right into user centered design.
During afternoon break talk about training presentations tomorrow. Work on
training resource suite later this afternoon.

JB. Two years ago we did a site redesign, but it wasn't systematic. Wanted
customized access for different audiences. Last summer, July 29 and 30, we
discussed in Toronto how to do a UCD approach. February in Boston, we
discussed what to do, need for people to do different parts of the
process.

SLH. Want to give overview of UCD, then specifically talk about project
proposal for usability testing of WAI site. Documents from last March F2F. UCD
also called Human Centered Design in Europe, and also customer-centered
design. Multidisciplinary area. Many resources available. Lots of resources
online. Process with very specific techniques. Ensure that the process
includes audience, tasks, workflow. Iterative process. Meeting in March got
interesting feedback. Have organization interested in doing usability testing
of WAI site at no charge, and provide input to process. Any questions?

WL. Overall question from outreach point of view. Has accessibility
community reached the usability community?

JB. Tangential issue.

SLH. Short answer: I have been giving presentations for a few years and
reception is good.

SLH. Questions about the process?

SAZ. Any policy in W3C?

SLH. Very few.

JB. Site has grown out of contributions by individual members, with little
overall coordination, except for few guidelines. Role of WAI EOWG is to lead
work in this area. In March had participation by other groups.

PG. I used to work in a Web design company and know importance of
usability. Are we going to create guidelines that combine usability and
accessibility?

SLH. Couple of answers. Not in scope of WAI EOWG. Mimi has project that
integrates. There was a group of people that wanted to start usability WG
within W3C. We should keep in contact with the other initiatives.

PG. More and more questions in France from Web design companies asking
about accessibility, want method to avoid wasting time, ask for checkpoints
during design phase.

SLH. Not priority for this group but others are working on it.

MK. We are going to put materials on the Web for designers. Issue of
integrating users with disabilities into testing procedures.

SLH. Two years ago did a workshop on it, I can give you the address.

WL. Are we talking about usability of all W3C materials?

JB. No. This discussion is only about the WAI site.

WL. One way to start is to create personas.

SLH. One problem with doing full-blown UCD, including personas, is the
time. I used to do UCD before starting in accessibility, but now there's not
enough time, either mine or this group's. Need to minimize time and maximise
benefits.

ML. Who heads this effort? You [to SLH]?

SLH. Yes.

ML. What is our scope?

SLH. This group has input into the process itself.

ML. Are we looking for requirements? This is my speciality area.

SLH. In March we talked about setting up a task force, to devise proposals
for the group to review.

LK. Have we had comments about why the site is not usable?

SLH. Very few formally, the link to submit comments is at the bottom of
the page. There is an archive, but it's very small.

JB. There are many more comments than go to the archive. We've tried a
number of experiments for the design over the years.

SLH. There are many people waiting to try. But we need to be more formal,
systematic. Create usability tests to help identify and quantify the problems
and strengths of the current design, and provide benchmarking of the site.
The people volunteering to do the work will do the usability testing quite
formally in facilities equipped for the testing. Eight participants. Not
enough to allow any quantitatve statistical analysis. In last teleconference
there were lots of ideas. Let people in other countries conduct the tests,
for example. Lots of wonderful ideas, and we hope to do some of them, but we
have to temper the scope because of the resources available. Are there any
questions about usability testing in general?

CC. What is the normal number of people for testing?

RT. Some people say that 6 to 8 people is good, but more than that and you
get diminishing returns.

SLH. What we have to do today is to talk about that. Some of the things we
have to put in the pre-test questionnaire? What tasks do we want the
participants to complete? For example... find resource on site. Host test
questionnaires, about their site in general. Determine the characteristics of
the participants. Who do we want these participants to be? Particpant
screener. First topic is: we've got eight slots, who do we want in each?

ML. First we need a Web development person. Within that, someone on the
business side, and someone who does coding.

RT. Someone with different disabilities.

DS. Testing tools. JAWS, some screen reader.

SLH. In the test, state what tools they use.

SAZ. Different countries and different languages.

SLH. The company that will do the testing is in Massachussetts. We have
people in the UK and Australia interested in this. Save time and energy to be
able to do tests in other languages and countries.

MK. Important, but as this company is donating their resources, perhaps a
recent immigrant or visitor to this country could satisfy the requirement, or
does it have to be someone not related to US culture.

SLH. How much effort do we need to put in to ensure that some test
participants are not American or americanised?

SAZ. I have found that in Europe, Web sites tend to be organised
differently. If it is too American, it would be a problem.

MK. But if we use someone who is native to other country but lives in US,
could be OK.

PG. Vocabulary: when I first saw "authoring tool" or even "education and
outreach" it was confusing.

LK. People in other Web development areas. Someone who is responsible for
Web accessibility

CC. Either a secretary or executive staff assistant, as they are often
called to find out about things for boss. On my campus, for example.

ML. The representative for accessibility in a company, who was initially
in charge of Web for. People we have to think who we are designing the site
for.

SLH. Absolutely. The site was not developed following formal UCD. All
deliverables are done in response to needs of users. List of deliverables is
updated every quarter. There was a list but I can't find the link.

SAZ. Management, decision makers. Not developers, but who have some
ownership of the site.

PG. We train public site developers who have to justify it to their
bosses.

WL. Professional usability specialist.

JT. Beginner in accessibility.

HB. In government sector, people who are setting up contracts with design
companies. So they know what to ask about.

SLH. A range of people, with a range of skills with authoring tools. Who
we want and the task, we have to ensure that the people can't find the info
on the Web site. Choose people and tasks that we think are important.

HB. Different countries have different criteria. More international tasks.
For example, find a country's legal requirements.

WL. A rehabilitation counsellor.

LK. A teacher.

PG. A student? They are young and learn about disabilities.

CC. Not sure this was covered in the training user.

WL. A disability rights advocate.

LK. A legislator.

SLH. A press reporter.

CC. Or in public relations.

SLH. We have to look at prioritising and overlap. One of my questions is
people with disabilities. Different profiles. Would all the users have
disabilities? Material for people with disabilities, advocacy, etc. What are
our goals in terms of requirements and range of disabilities. Let's be more
specific about the disabilities represented in the eight users.

DS. Visual impairments, motor disabilities. Test: that a visually impaired
person can understand things fairly easily and not get lost. That parts of
site like tables are OK.

RT. Recoverability if people get lost.

CC. Since we are testing usability and not accessibility, we should
perhaps minimize the number of disabilities represented. Agree with DS that
visual is important, though. Do accessibility testing later in
development.

SLH. There is a difference between usable accessibility and technical
accessibility.

HB. What about reading disabilities? Low literacy and dyslexia.

RT. Error recoverability is important.

NL. Are we taking about the old site or the new?

SLH. The old site.

NL. The idea is to give the disabled user the same experience as the
others, and until you test you can ever tell.

HB. We should include a braille user.

CC. Someone with braille has a different experience.

DS. A friend of mine has cerebral palsy and is blind.

SLH. Types of organisations

ML. Different requirements in different countries.

SLH. What do you think about the priorities of different organisations.

RT. How does that affect priorities?

HB. Educational institutions, distance leaning, not just government.

DS. A company with 100000+ employees. Different experience.

SLH. How does organization affect user test? How important is that in
terms of usability testing? If we have users from different types of
organisations are those people going to interact with the site
differently?

DS. In my large company we have a vast reservoir of knowledge.

SAZ. I think the expertise is important. Managers look for one type of
information, developers for other, not only because of the size.

DS. Disagree. For example in financial industry, in big company even a
financial manager will be aware of issues, but in a small company no.

SLH. Depends on experience of user in company. Everything we want must be
included in screener.

WL. If we decide that this is about usability. We don't necessarily need
specialist users. Unless dealing with content, not just structure.

RT. Dealing with experience.

SLH. To summarise last discussion: Important is variety of experience
levels, not of organisations.

HB. Some of the organisation, would be very similar, whether they come
from central government or local government. Should include private
enterprises and disability organisations. People in disability organisations
have different viewpoint.

CC. If we include those four categories we would cover everything.

NL. We need to talk about the navigation and not the content. If we talk
about roles, we are talking about content.

CC. Roles lead to question "What will I be doing on the site?"

HB. Structure is very closely related to this. If we look at navigation
and structure, we need to look at different backgrounds, and what is this
site presenting. Structure very important.

SLH. Leads us nicely into talking about tasks. If we talk more about
tasks, it will help us define the rest. I sent an email with the tasks.
[shows on screen and explains]

HB. Assuming that there is a voice recorder?

SLH. Will have a live facilitator, giving instructions.

DS. Like to see task to clarify difference in time for sighted and
non-sighted.

SLH. With only eight users, not enough data. Dangerous to provide data
with this number of users.

DS. Have complaints from blind users about time taken.

SLH. OK. Have seen data used negatively, so be careful. Any specific
task?

DS. To find an embedded paragraph.

SLH. Deep within document?

DS. A linearised table. A visual user would have it easier, but a blind
one finds it difficult.

LK. Different people, different levels of experience. Tasks. Some
advanced, some novices. Find out what tasks each does, and base task on
user's relationship to the site.

SLH. Hope to do the tests before, during and after, and show any
improvement, so need structure. Will talk to people doing tests and ask their
ideas.